If Iowa is a snapshot of America...

Then we may be able to draw these conclusions....

1) Hillary is under the impression that most people like her when in reality they don't. The cackle, the arrogance, her dogmatic manner in engaging the issues which underscores her feelings of superiority, the fact that she voted for the war --- I believe many people view her as "Bush-Lite" (1/3 less stupid with the same great lack of humility). She was not expecting third place in Iowa. But guess what? I didn't expect a "B" in history my junior year in college.
Advice: Don't fake regional accents, do a self-inventory and see what's not working, change it and work harder. Get a new hair style and add color to it.
Prediction: She will run again in 2012.

2) Barrack Obama is hands-down the front runner for the Democrats. When he speaks he motivates people. No other candidate, on either side, has that flair. His oratorical skills are hypnotic.
To win as an African-American candidate in Iowa is like getting Dick Cheney to smile: nearly impossible. Are there even any African-Americans in Iowa? If he takes New Hampshire, say good-night to Hillary. John Edwards may be Obama's Secretary of State choice, especially with his deep knowledge of African politics. Early prediction: Obama will take Jim Webb as his VP running mate. If that happens, Republicans have as much chance at winning the White House as George Bush does at learning the electric slide.
Advice: Get Spike Lee, Prince and Cornel West to endorse you. You will need the black vote and need it to be present at the polls.

3) John Edwards is trying too hard. His ideas are progressive and attractive. When he goes into long-winded explanations I feel as though he believes we have difficulty understanding the English language. I get it Johnny. The health care issue is killing you. We know that you will fight for health care for all Americans. I'm thrilled, really. Talk more about getting Bin Laden and getting out of Iraq.
Advice: Just be yourself, get that lid messed up once in a while, throw some dirt on those Haggar slacks and eat some ribs, damn it! And get your haircut at an African-American barber shop.
Prediction: When he retires from the race, he will get emotional.

4) Rudy Giuliani is as empty as a beer can at a Friday night fish fry at the Elk's Club in Milwaukee. If the election were based on the person physically closest to the first of the 9/11 attacks, Rudy would win. Thank God that's not the case. He is a one-trick pony. Even the FDNY is not backing him. That says something, especially when you claim you were hunting for survivors next to the brave men and women who actually were there doing it.
Rudy has a deranged foreign policy adviser in Norman Podhoretz, who is not helping the Rudy Train. Norman has been busy praying for war with Iran since the NIE came out which stated that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program 5 years ago. (see my other post about this)
Advice: Quit bringing up 9/11 like you're some kind of superhero and just join the Mafia, it's one of the few organizations that could care less how many girlfriends and/or ex-wives you have.

5) Fred Thompson makes me sleepy. In order to be my president, you need more than a cowboy hat and a faint southern accent. I think Fred thought he would show up and dust the other guys off without having to stay up past 6PM. Not quite. Mike "Forrest Gump" Huckabee just handed you your lunch and Mitt Romney will cut it up into smaller bites so you can eat it.
Advice: Lose the cowboy hat, admit that you backed abortion rights as a lobbyist and explain why and get more publicity with old school Republicans like Jim Baker and Nic Brady.
Prediction: Fred will be back to daily 1PM naps by Valentine's Day. Good thing, too, because his wife is going to want more than a box of chocolates. And if Rudy is still creeping around....hey, he could get her free NYPD protection, you know!

5) Huckabee. The mere sound of his name makes me laugh. I picture him and Tom Sawyer eating worms and chasing each other around in straw hats with no shoes or socks. This guy doesn't believe in evolution and thinks that homosexuality is an aberration and unnatural. Hmmm...what do you say about that Mark Foley, Ted Haggard and Larry Craig? How about 3,000 years of human history? Last I checked, gays have the right to vote. We'll see how "unnatural" their ballots are in November.
Advice: Rely on other research material besides the Bible and quit with the subliminal hints in the ads (the HUGE cross in the background). The Roman Catholic Church in Vatican City for centuries had male sex slaves so just validate that homosexuality is not a choice and you might have a chance with the MTV vote.
Prediction: Huckabee is the fall guy, kind of like that really cool African-American guy in a mystery-suspense movie who the white screenwriter kills off first. The RNC is pimping him as the front runner to eventually supplant him with a candidate who is less evangelical but equally in line with those values (possibly McCain). Karl Rove, you are genius!

7) McCain is still the only true Republican. This is the only Republican that if elected would not make me want to move out of the country. I still think he is a very legitimate contender. He may not be the most dynamic speaker or have the best hair cut but he is still moving forward with his "diplomacy first, no torture" platform. That is attractive to the undecideds and to the moderates. If there is anyone who can speak on the subject of war, it's McCain. He is from Arizona so his illegal immigration platform ought to be considered more logical and reliable than that of any other candidates.
Advice: Get Sylvester Stallone to endorse you and get some of your war comrades to speak on your behalf. Show some dialog with Hispanic leaders to reinforce your commitment on immigration reform. And don't say that we'll be in Iraq for 100 years, that will get you unseated as senator in Arizona.

8) Mitt Romney is a great candidate. He supports Bush too much but no one is perfect. He is certainly the best-dressed and best-looking candidate. He was elected governor in a very liberal state. But he's Mormon and if I'm not mistaken, Fox News has unilaterally put Mormons on Bush's Axis of Evil list. If we had to put Iraqi generals on a deck of playing cards so that Fox News viewers could understand the war, you can bet that NO ONE on that side understands the modern day LDS religion. That being said, it's only a matter of time before Mitt throws in the towel. Too bad that we judge candidates before they speak.
Advice: Too late to go Catholic but give it a shot. Just claim you had some vision in a dream and God spoke to you. Worked for Bush in justifying his invasion of Iraq. Get a Boston accent, too. Another guy did that and won an election.
Prediction: It will be sad when he retires from the race. America is not prejudice, right?

Voter turnout for Iowa Caucus:
Democrats - 220,000
Republicans - 115,000

That is not good for the elephants.

If I had a crystal ball...

July of 2008: Clinton and Obama are battling for the Democrat nomination and McCain and Giuliani are duking it out for the Republicans

After the conventions: Obama vs. McCain

Next President: Not Ron Paul

The Project for the New American Century: Sociopaths working hard to ensure the destruction of American principles

I watched yet another frightening documentary on the pre-emptive, unnecessary and illegal war that is Operation Enduring Freedom. This is a fairly appropriate title for this war since it is this administration that our freedoms have had to endure. In this cold, factual documentary, Uncovered: The War in Iraq, director Robert Greenwald has the usual cast of experts who explain how Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle and the other axis of evil got away with, well, murder. As this tragedy continues to play out-- and I even hesitate to call it a tragedy because tragedies usually begin well and end sadly-- this constitutional siege began badly and continues to worsen. In this documentary there is a mention of The Project for the New American Century, or as neocons so affectionately call it by its acronym, PNAC (click here for website - caution: material not suitable for truth-seekers!).

William Kristol heads this group of deranged, nerdy wannabe imperialists. If you do not know who William Kristol is, that is perfectly normal. You and 359 million other Americans have at least that in common. Mr. Kristol is also the editor of The Weekly Standard, a very conservative, let's be honest, NEOconservative publication. If I could write The Weekly Standard's motto, it would read: "So what if we made up the intelligence report on Iraq's WMD program in order to go to war? We can't let silly things like truth or facts get in the way of global responsibility!"

Here is PNAC's mission statement, or better yet, a brief glimpse into the minds of individuals who played WAY too much Dungeons and Dragons in their adolescent years:

The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.

The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world. - William Kristol, Chairman

Now, lets play critic for moment and have fun with words! In the first part, Kristol decides to use the combination of "fundamental propositions". This can be interpreted in a variety of ways but here is my "proposition". "Fundamental", meaning, "necessary or essential, basic" is used with a word (proposition) that truly lacks any identity with being true or false. It translates to "essential suggestion". My experience has been that suggestions are merely "suggestive", never necessary. If you and your friends are hungry and are discussing where to eat, if you do not "suggest" a location, will all of you die of starvation? I doubt it.

Next William goes on to say that "American leadership is good both for America and for the world...". This is a bit ambitious, wouldn't you agree? I would "suggest" that the current White House administration has been anything BUT good for America, at least most of America (two beneficiaries: those who have stock in Haliburton and Osama Bin Laden). Ask around about gas prices, the Iraq situation, the surrendered hunt for Bin Laden, health care, the cutting of pay for soldiers or the No Billionaire Left Behind School Program. Ask some middle-class people in Livonia, MI who can't get work because their jobs are in China and... gas being what it is, can't make THAT kind of commute...Livonia is also where The Decider decided to autograph an American Flag for some lucky person. Imagine that...someone autographing the American Flag with a Sharpie, as if it were a concert t-shirt or a Major League Baseball...awwww shucks...humility is not his best quality.

As far as American leadership being good for the world, I'm not so sure Wild Bill. Iraq is certainly not as bucolic as Mr. Kristol's McLean, VA. La fuga del cervello, the flight of the intellect, continues to destroy Iraq from within and our decision to fire 450,000 Iraqi soldiers was not the beginning of a winning streak. Iraq is about as safe as you and I next to Dick Cheney on a hunting trip.

Next, Kristol maintains that, "...such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principles." Yippeeee....! "Such leadership"....where did he define what it was? He didn't. So what he has not defined still requires something. Sweet genius!
So let's bring our armed forces to enforce ___ and then let's put spread some "diplomatic energy" around___ (as if it were magic dust that may or may not work---hopefully it won't, that way we can have more shock and awe!) and then we can commit to "moral principles".
Ever "committed" to going fishing with one of your drinking buddies at 6AM on a Saturday morning while you are both sauced on Friday at midnight? And neither of you show up, but when you see each other later that day, you don't mention it because you both knew it was a long shot that you would have succeeded to begin with? I have committed to so many things without ever feeling a muscle move or blinking an eye. If there are 4 frogs on a log and one commits to jump off, how many are left?
4 -- that one frog only committed to jumping.

The second paragraph is less confusing but more disturbing. Kristol scribbles, "The Project for the New American Century intends [...] to explain what American world leadership entails."

Whatch you talkin' bout Willis??? Huh??? Did it already happen?? Where were we?
That statement contains no hypothetical words or conditional expressions! (teeth chattering)
I can see William and his fellow non-truth seekers all sitting around playing "Risk" in their Darth Vader/Hans Solo pajamas, pretending to be Napoleon.

The second half of the last statement is rather a bit of an oxymoron. If the objective of this sinister group is that America rules the world, then how or why could that insane, illogical, nonsensical goal "...stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world."

Wouldn't the debate sound something like this.

Participant X: I feel that American world leadership would curtail the natural order of things, that it would stifle the freedoms and liberties of other nations and their right to govern themselves as they see fit...since they are already a sovereign nation, it would be against our founding fathers' wishes that this democracy partake in such a tyrannical act.

William Kristol: America kicks ass and will continue to do so whether you want us to or not. Come to democracy or it will come to you! Next question please!

Aside from my attempts at humor, I chose to bring this serious issue to the attention of as many people as possible. Why? Because there are individuals who want to do great harm to this country and what it stands for. And not just Bush and Cheney. There is a very powerful neoconservative movement out there that has its eyes set on an Empire. They do not take days off and we cannot afford to either.

Where the leaders in the Democrat Party have failed us, and miserably, we must pick up the banner and continue to carry it for those who founded this country, for those who have fought for it and for those who will follow behind us. We do not want, nor can we allow ourselves, to be the generation that failed in its duty, that in the face of evil from both internal threats as well as external ones, we maintained with dignity our principles of truth and justice and we protected the Constitution with the fierceness of a lioness protecting her young. Even when the tendency was to constrict or eliminate freedoms and liberties, we realized that by doing so would suffocate any hope of victory against those who want to take them away.

The neocons, regarding the War on (of) Terror, often spew the tired rhetoric of "you're either with us or you're against us." My response is parallel to a quote by the great Mark Twain, "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it". I love America, the American Flag and the Statue of Liberty. I love the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and our forefathers who wrote them with our self-preservation in mind.

To PNAC and Bush I say,
"WE DON'T SUPPORT YOU
BECAUSE YOU DON'T DESERVE IT."

Putin is "Time" magazine Person of the Year---neocons get robbed !!

So an American didn't win "Time" magazine Person of the Year? Wait a second...but I thought we ARE the world...the rest of the countries are sub-human, terrorist, primitive, culturally-backward and overall inferior?
That's not the case? Huh??

But we have Kenny Chesney, NASCAR and Wrangler Jeans! I demand a recount! (wait a minute, we all know how recounts turn out - see Florida 2000 Election)

The neocons are screaming in disbelief about Time's choice. The average far right-winger has donned the lemming suit once again and is following the right-wing pundits' proposed selection of General David Petraeus--the man who singlehandedly saved Iraq from the "last throes of the insurgency" (in real terms, the general who saved the White House from further embarassment). Not sure exactly how much of a role General Petraeus is playing in the decline in violence in Iraq. Are we to discount the efforts by those brave men and women dodging bullets? And wasn't it the White House and Fox News who were touting the increase in solidarity among common Iraqi citizens against their own fellow disenfranchised national religious insurgent neighbors...errr...Al-Qaeda?

Forget Petraeus and Putin. Both men certainly had enormous influence on world affairs. But have we so quickly forgotten about the man who brought us to this point in history, who masterminded the fear and propaganda campaign after 9/11? The architect of the "Iraq has WMD/Iraq is behind 9/11"...The man who succeeded in dividing the country in such a way that hasn't been seen since the Civil War? The genius that came up with, "you're either with us or against us"...still no idea?

Karl "Joseph Goebbels" Rove!!!
click on name to see Karl decked out in full fascist gear

That's right ladies and gentlemen, this is the man responsible, primarily, for the following events: this blog, the divisiveness in our country, the unilateral and dangerously arrogant foreign policy of "The Decider", the constant fear of the unknown, the relinquished and surrendered efforts to capture bin Laden, the unnecessary bodily searches at your nearest airport, the illegal wiretapping program, the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity, allowing right-wing religious zealots to hijack the Republican Party, the pre-arranged firing of 8 U.S. Attorneys who wouldn't agree to shredding the Constitution, the planting of lunatics among peaceful protests to highlight civil unrest, the spying on normal, ordinary citizens, the elimination of habeas corpus, Guatanamo-ville, Operation Rendition, the idea of putting Saddam and 51 other Iraqi government officials on a deck of playing cards so that the Hannity and O'Reilly lemmings could understand and play "Shock and Awe" together, the fun and colorful "Terror Alert" seen on Fox News Channel until they realized that even the neocons were getting annoyed with it, the advent of Anthrax (not the muscial group), Bush winning the 2000 Presidential Election, and quite possibly, the curse of Steve Bartman (guy who interfered and caught the infamous foul ball in Cubs playoff game in 2003---okay, a bit of an exaggeration there...thought I could sneak one under the radar).

Quite a resume'. And this is a mere snapshot. This guy would make Hitler say, "Wow...now that IS friggin' evil !!!"

So, Time, I am disappointed, too. I really thought you would have given this a bit more thought. Karl Rove has supposedly retired this year and rode his black horse back to Mordor (click here to view Karl's front lawn).

Perhaps we will someday honor this wicked man-- who in an effort to "protect America and spread democracy" did everything to the contrary.

When men pray to God, they pray that 2 + 2 will not make 4...

Bush and his neo-conservative war hopes...errr... plans for Iran have been foiled by the National Intelligence Estimate!
16 different agencies produced the report and have concluded that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Damn those wily liberals with all of their facts, truth and data!

Score one for democracy and the Constitution, not to mention mankind and peace.

Many neocons profess it to be God's will that the United States invade other countries to wage war and to the surprise of many, establish lucrative military contracts for Haliburton, Blackwater, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, etc. Who would have thought that God was a merciless, inhumane capitalist?!

With firm conviction in their socio-pathological minds, neo-conservatives claim to be such ardent followers of peaceful religions. So frequently they stereotype ALL Muslims to be replicas of Osama Bin-Laden. I guess that means ALL Christians and/or Jews are peaceful, non-violent, brother-loving, and selfless like....for example Rudy Giuliani's Foreign Policy Adviser, Norman Podhoretz, of Jewish faith. Norman wrote a very loving, peaceful op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal.

Here is the last paragraph of that "peaceful" article, exact quote:

"Not so George W. Bush, a man who knows evil when he sees it and who has demonstrated an unfailingly courageous willingness to endure vilification and contumely in setting his face against it. It now remains to be seen whether this president, battered more mercilessly and with less justification than any other in living memory, and weakened politically by the enemies of his policy in the Middle East in general and Iraq in particular, will find it possible to take the only action that can stop Iran from following through on its evil intentions both toward us and toward Israel. As an American and as a Jew, I pray with all my heart that he will."

Huh??? Did you just pray for what I thought you just prayed for???

I mean, I've heard of praying for Notre Dame to beat Michigan, for the Cubs to beat the Cardinals...but praying for war...death, destruction, violence, grief and homelessness?

Sorry Norman, that "religion" I want no part of ! (same goes for radical Islamists)

Voting for Rudolph Giuliani for president is like voting for Bush...only with a New York accent, slightly larger vocabulary and instead of saying "nuclear" every 12 seconds, Rudy says "On September 11th, 2001..."

I leave you with this: "an eye for an eye leaves the world blind" - Gandhi

Peace to all this holiday season...even to you Ahmadinejad...I'll love you until you can love yourself!

Just checking in...

It has been over 2 months since my last post. My wife suggested in early October that I take a break. I was getting a bit too emotional trying to exorcise the lemmings who continue to buy into the trinity: Rush, Sean Hannity and Fox News. It was an exercise in futility as these individuals continue to march forward with an ideology that appears to be more fascist in nature with each day that passes.

I really had to let go of the idea that I was, or currently am, capable of changing the mindset of misguided individuals. I must have faith that our Creator will eventually allow good to triumph over evil, and that, yes, the "truth will set us free."

A recent documentary was released on DVD. The piece is entitled, "No end in sight" (www.noendinsightmovie.com) I recommend it to anyone who has not closely followed the Iraq quagmire...errr...conflict since the mission was declared "accomplished" back in May of 2003. The individuals interviewed in the documentary were those asked to head the reconstruction of post-conflict Iraq. Their stories will leave you in disbelief and perhaps even infuriate you. To see the lives of these young men and women who are maimed and severely damaged emotionally, having fought and given their lives for the empty rhetoric of "Global war on terror" and "spreading democracy", is the ultimate shame for this highly corrupt and pre-fascist White House administration. In ten years or less this documentary will be shown as part of the curriculum in social studies/history classes nationwide. You can contain the truth for a period of time but you can never make it disappear forever. (If Dick Cheney can't do it, no one can)





I recently purchased the latest book by Naomi Wolf, "The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, A Citizen's Call to Action". Wolf does a superb job of highlighting the frightening similitudes between fascist regimes like those of Hitler and Mussolini and those of the current Bush Administration. The thread that ties the book together is the fact that the regimes of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy did not fully blossom overnight, but rather, in a long, systematic process that devoured civil liberties piecemeal. Wolf delivers her thesis in a chilling intellectual manner, subverting emotion to remain factually and historically accurate. If you don't believe you can be arrested at random and be labeled an "enemy combatant" by George Walker Bush and be sentenced to a military prison for years without a trial and subjected to torture, then you are guilty of one of three things: 1) you have not read the list of executive orders delivered by Bush over the last 16 months or noticed that OUR political leaders passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (click here for information), or 2) you do not know the full story of Jose' Padilla or 3) you watch Fox News and believe that Bush, if he had the power to do that, is justified in doing so (Yeeeee-haw...Freedom ain't free you A-rab lovin' librals!).
Either way the information is out there. It's free, but it won't come to you without your seeking it out.

If you think you are patriotic, if you love the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, if you believe that Ben Franklin, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were men of principle and foresight, if you long for the days when this country was respected, then both the documentary and book are for you.

There has never been a democracy like ours in the history of mankind. Enjoy it while you can.

"When Johnny comes marching home again..."---For whom or what does the soldier fight?

One of the many drums that the Bush administration has continued to beat is that of the "brave young men and women who are fighting for our freedom and democracy." It has been used as a very sharp, sentimental weapon: when Congress was slow on approving funds for the war, when morale and support for the war in general begins to weaken and when there is a tide of an angry and tired public which questions the overall legitimacy of this war, the war machine spits out a couple of televised meetings with the families of fallen soldiers or shows video of Bush's latest visit to a military base. As I mentioned in an earlier post, support for this war means everything to the Bush administration. They will stop at nothing to create it and/or find more of it. If there's no support, John and Jane Citizen may see this war for what it truly is and may take some serious action to get us the hell out of there (losing votes is devastating).

In August Rep. Lindsey Graham-R attempted to debate the Iraq question with Democrat Senator Jim Webb on Meet the Press. One of Rep. Graham's talking points was a very tired one, and a very misunderstood one: that more and more soldiers are reenlisting to go back to Iraq and fight after redeployment or injury. Now, Sen. Webb, a Vietnam veteran himself, could have slammed him on that remark. I was surprised he didn't. But then again, what I'm about to discuss in this blog entry rarely attracts any debate. It would be not only unpopular but the subject alone requires an enormous amount of concentration and comprehension, which in the age of excitement can be annoying.

One of my faults (so they told me) in graduate school was my occasional overly-simplified explanation of highly intellectual material. I write to be understood, not to play hide-and-seek with the reader. My dream would be to teach a course on the Divine Comedy strictly in the lexicon of the pop culture.
Alright "hip" reader, you're in luck. Today's blog concerns the field of semiotics, which is the study of signs and symbols and their meaning as they relate to communication. I will address this by presenting two psychoanalytic concepts by Jacques Lacan and demonstrate how they can be used to understand why and for what the modern soldier fights.

In 1963 Jacques Lacan gave his famous 11th Seminar entitled, "The Four Fundamental Concepts of Pyschoanalysis." (L'Ecrits) For the first time Lacan proposed a break in the theory of Saussure regarding the concepts of the "signifier" and the "signified".

Let me break this down. Let's use something we all know fairly well, language. A signifier could be the word "cat", not in the sense of feline or what it means to be a cat or to meow, or even what it smells like or feels like, but simply the word, cat. The word cat on paper is simply that, a word. It doesn't have meaning until we give it one. When we give it meaning in our minds is when it becomes the signified. The signified could obviously change and be very different depending on the individual. I say the word cat and some of you think of Garfield, some of you think of a pet you had years ago and some of you think of allergies. Bottom line: there is a book full of signifiers, it's called a dictionary. What you think of when you read a particular word is a signified.

We could also say this: the signifier is the external reality and the signified is the internal reality, right? I mean, cat is generally accepted in our society as a four-legged feline that can be a domestic animal/pet. It purrs, meows and scratches. That is the signifier and in this case seems to be a generally accepted external reality.

The signified could mean various things to different individuals. Those meanings tend to be internalized and therefore exist only in our mind, a kind of internal reality. This does not mean that those internal realities are false and/or imaginary. On the contrary, they could all be true and authentic. The unique quality is that the signified usually differs among individuals because of experience and personal identification. After all, being scratched by a cat is very real to us.

Okay Federalist, where in the hell are you going with all this?

For the soldier, the war in Iraq has two distinct and very different realities: an external reality, what the German philosophers called Umwelt and an internal reality, called an Innenwelt.

The external reality, as we have established as the signifier, translates to the soldier as what the Bush administration has coined "The Global War on Terror". This signifier is one that is common to all soldiers and to the American public (Fox News flings this term around every 1.6 seconds). The soldiers have enlisted in the Armed Services. They were called up to go and wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of this coined phrase "The Global War on Terror". They cannot discriminate or use discretion in deciding where or when to wage war. They are forced to go.

I argue that these soldiers are not fighting for nationalistic ideals of spreading democracy, they do not subscribe to the tired rhetoric of "they hate us for our freedoms", heck, they may not even believe in those silly bumper sticks that say "Freedom ain't free". The idea that these soldiers are being injured in combat and wishing to return to the front to fight for such lofty and intangible ideologies like that of spreading democracy is not only the stuff of fairy tales but it is a disgrace to those who have given the ultimate sacrifice! Shame on those who continue to say that this war is just and necessary and that those fallen soldiers gave their lives so you can be free!

What the soldier can and does relate to is their signified, whatever that may be. It usually starts out with a pregnant wife or girlfriend back in the States, one or two young children, it could be a farm with hundreds of animals, it could be the desire to seek a college degree with money earned from enlisting...the list could go on ad infinitum.

In combat the signified for which the soldier fights expands and cements itself in the form of a fraternal bond. Their focus then becomes common protection and survival with the man who is beside them in the foxhole taking mortar rounds. They begin to feel an incredible sense of duty and brotherhood with those who are closest in proximity. When they are injured or maimed and cannot return to combat, my senses tell me that these brave but unfortunate soldiers are not crying out for returning to spread democracy or to eliminate the al-Qaeda network. They are crying out for that signified that represents the essence of their being and their purpose. Their families, their fellow soldiers, their lieutenants, their pick-up trucks and a cold 6-pack of beer back home.

Bottom line: the soldiers fight for these things because they are tangible and they mean something to them. These and only these type of ideals, those that are personal to the soldier and are ones he can identify with, are the signifieds for which that soldier fights, so that those who planned this horrible war and who continue to profit from it, can achieve, perhaps, their own personal signifieds.

(photo is of Jacques Lacan, French pyschoanalyst, psychiatrist and doctor, 1901-1981)

The line at the bathroom stall is long...here's a solution!

So, yeah, I've been a little absent from submitting new posts for my blog. Since my last post so many things have taken place that it almost makes me want to procrastinate further.

A while back, a story broke which reported that Idaho Senator Larry Craig (a man with two first names...suspicious already) had been arrested on June 11 in a sting operation designed to curtail homosexual sex acts in a public bathroom in the Minneapolis Hubert Humphrey Airport. The charge was a misdemeanor to which Craig immediately pleaded guilty in hopes that the whole episode would vanish as quickly as Dick Cheney's e-mails. Well, it didn't. Just because a tree falls in the forest...and...you get the picture.

Now, as always the case when "straight" married men get busted for homosexual sex, Craig's first response was that of giving his track record of 60 plus years of continuous heterosexuality, the physical presence of a wife and children (proof of at least two heterosexual sexual acts, possibly three) and for the mere fact that he is a Republican, and therefore, straight. After all, homosexuality is a choice (remember when you, reader, chose your sexuality...it was a Wednesday, wasn't it?) and a sinful one at that. A Christian Republican would never willingly commit sodomy (Ted Haggard, Mark Foley...cough cough).

The Republican party finally hung Craig out to dry and made him walk the plank. Namely because at the center of the controversy was a homosexual act and also because Idaho has a Republican governor, who would undoubtedly replace Craig with another Republican senator, therefore keeping the seat. The GOP probably thought that Craig had caught some contagious viral disease, gaykemia, and wanted nothing to do with that.

Democrats have been claiming hypocrisy and Republicans have been citing Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.

So...where's Frodo and who has the ring?

Hypocrisy. Google tells me that it's the " The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness." Saying one thing and doing another. Republicans such as Craig have run on the platform of ferocious opposition to gays and to gay rights. This would then beg the question: are they opposing gay rights because they don't like gay people and what they represent (i.e. parades, better dance club music, great taste in fashion and home decorating) or is it because they are opposed to homosexuality? I suppose you could be gay AND be asexual. But you could also be married with children and be homosexual...come to think of it, you can be just about anything nowadays. Therefore, Craig and his posse must be against the parades and all its gayness, right? Because it would appear that they are not so much against the gay sex part (at least Craig isn't).

The hypocrisy hangs over this situation like Rudy Giuliani's new hairpiece, even better. You see, the Republicans came out swinging in 1994 with slogan "We are the party of family values." While that may have been true for former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, who, let's face it, will never be voluntarily involved in any sex scandal...ever, it has certainly proven to be an unreachable ideal for many other prominent Republicans who have professed, and continue to profess, to be morally superior.

Ted Haggard. No explanation needed. C'mon, look at the guy. There's nothing about him that screams straight other than his teeth. Here's a preacher who spoke directly with the White House nearly once a week and fought against gay rights. Proof that the harder you fight the urge for something, the more you go overboard with it when you get it. Remember that uptight dude from the movie "Chocolat"? When he finally got his hands on some chocolate, he got it all over...his...I'll stop there.

Mark Foley. A former congressman from Florida who advocated stiffer (sorry) punishment for pedophiles in his home state of Florida. Meanwhile, he's texting 15 year old male pages (young lads that do summer work at the Capitol to gain experience...hmmm...maybe this is where it starts) telling them that he's got an erection and asking when he can "help slip their shorts off." Someone call Chris Hansen from Dateline NBC, we gotta live one.

Brian J. Doyle. Former number 5 in charge in Department of Homeland Security was busted for soliciting an officer posing as a 14 yr old girl in a child internet sex sting. He even told the officer who he was, that he worked for Homeland Security and he even gave out his government issued cell number. He even sent hard-core pornographic movie clips to the undercover officer. Feel safe yet? (link to story)

Senator David Vitter. Current Senator from Louisiana who was on a Washington madam's call list (really expensive hookers with no diseases). Vitter was virtually congratulated by his colleagues for this heroic heterosexual act. Vitter claimed that he had a deep conversation with "his God" and that "his God" forgave him, so everything is cool now. Seems like many Republicans have conversations with God, none of which are ever recorded or witnessed by anyone, and they seem to be the only conduits to Heaven. Never mind that prostitution is still illegal (God is all powerful but He has had difficulty overturning that law in Washington D.C.) and that Vitter is married. No worries. The GOP had to keep Vitter, because Louisiana has a Democrat for a governor and the people of Louisiana are not exactly doing cartwheels for the current White House administration.

This list goes on ad nauseum. John McCain's Florida campaign adviser was busted in a park bathroom for soliciting gay sex. Another Homeland Security person was busted in a child internet sex sting last week.

Bottom line, as far as hypocrisy goes, is that the Democrats don't run on the platform of being morally superior because THEY KNOW THEY'RE NOT. They don't run on the platform of judging others, of what's acceptable social behavior and what's not, of who is good and who is bad, of speaking for a God from whom they could not be further away. There was a candidate years ago, that ran on a platform of not wanting to judge or condemn others, of not wanting to call others names and insults, who believed that everyone was equal and should have the same opportunities as others. What was his name...??? Oh yeah, Jesus of Nazareth. Crazy socialist liberal.

Bill Clinton was impeached because he lied to a grand jury. He said he DIDN'T DO SOMETHING THAT HE ACTUALLY DID. That's called lying. That's against the law when you're in court. He did not, however, say during any of his campaigns that he was a "man of family values" and that he was going to restore "good faith, morals and values to the White House." Fortunately for Bill, cheating on your wife by having sex with an intern in the Oval Office, while a very poor decision, is not against the law. I don't think you're going to see Bill Clinton do any type of marriage counseling or hold any fidelity workshops in this lifetime. Again, poor decision but no hypocrisy.

The sad part for Republicans is that for millions of men in this country, homosexuality seems to be working out quite nicely. I rarely hear any complaints from any of my gay friends about their choice. If I ask, "How's it going Brad?", rarely do I hear, "It's going okay, things could be better if I weren't so freakin' gay." They generally seem happy, joyous and free with their lifestyle. They love themselves and love others unconditionally. A lesson few have learned.

The tragic part for the Republicans is that the GOP drove a good man and great public servant like Larry Craig into a dirty, filthy public bathroom to engage in what it deems sinful, despicable and unmentionable. His chance of contracting HIV or any other STD, or passing one on, increases exponentially every time the stall door closes. Who knows how many men he has been in contact with and how many they have subsequently been with? He is confined to a bathroom stall because outside of this urine and fecal receptacle area lies a whole world so incredibly judgmental and so full of hate and misunderstanding, that instead of being a punchline at a Washington party and the recipient of a thousand condescending stares, he chooses to have the most intimate sexual act in a place you can't get out of fast enough. You neo-con Republicans fail to realize that this is not a choice. You act as if one day Craig woke up, poured a cup of soy milk and said to himself, "I think today is a good day to start having anonymous gay sex in public bathrooms across the country."

Stop treating homosexuality like it's contagious. Don't worry: if you don't have it by now you're not going to get it. You're safe. Quit touching feet in Minneapolis, open the stall and let the others out of the bathroom so they can be safe, too.